Loading...
PC 02-05-00'CITY OF CUPERTINO ({J300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 5, 2000 CONFERENCE ROOM A - 10:00 A.M. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney Others Present: E. Vasquez, McLarand, Vasquez & Partners; Robert Apodaca, McLarand, Vasqucz & Partners John Moss, Pegasus Development; Donald Bragg, Pegasus I)cvch)pmcnl: Randol Mackley, Retail Real Estate Group; Patti Letire, Landscape Architccl. PUBLIC HEARING OLD BUSINESS Workshop for discussion of proposed apartments at City Center on Stevens Crock Boulcwn'd. Mr. Donald Bragg, Pegasus Development, thanked those present fbr tile opportunity to mccl and discuss issues relative to the proposed apartment complex. He reported that the traffic study findings concluded Ihal there ix significant or material impact to traffic from the combined development of the holcl and aparlmcnl In'{~jccl. uoted that tbe results of the report would be available within a week. Mr. Bragg noted that the major issue was that the Planning Commission wanted to better Hndcrsland Iht imlmCl of the project, as the hotel and apartment project relate to each other in addition to thc actjaccnt businesses within Iht Cupertino City Center. He noted that his company developedthe m~[iority of thc City Ccnlcr, and Ihcre was :t model that reflects and shows all the buildings that have been built to date and plans arc lo include Iht ht~cl project to be presented at a formal meeting. He said that Raudoldvlackley would address thc rclail compoucnl of the project later in the meeting. Mr. Bragg said that at the last study session, the Planning Conunission appeared to be support the concept of the project but wanted to explore the architectural dclails, l lc said Ihal no malcrild changes to the plans were made since the last Planning Commission meeting; bnt they were prcparcd lo discnss refinement of detail as requested. He said there were 205 units, and tile size of the parcel size was approximately 1.8 acres, with approximately 200,000 square footage. Mr. Paul Letire, Guzzardo & Associates, Inc., landscape architect, referred to tile hmdscapc plan and rcvicxvcd thc proposed landscape plan, illustrating the architectural plan lbr the podium level, seating spaccs, aud It~cation plants, shrubbery and trees. He discussed how the design fit in with the I leart of thc Cily Iq:m, and thc ftmcli~m of the sculpture on two scales. He said the elevation difference between the park and gardcn was apl)roxim:~lely feet. Mr. Ernie Vasquez, McLarand Vasquez & Partners, referred to tile conceptual skclch o[' tile propnscd complex as viewed from Stevens Creek Boulevard; the podium level to show comparison between thc third and cighlh It:vel: parking level 2, parking level 3; and illustrated the location of the elevators and ~hc indoor parkiug. [lc m~tcd Ill;ti Planning Commissiou Minutes 2 I:cl~rum'y 5, 2000 there were 59 retail guest parking spaces, and shared parking with the adjacent surface lei. I Ic clarified Ihal r~ntal office would be a function off the lobby area, and that tbere would be a i'ccrcalional area managed by Ihcir company. He said that the rental rates were not yet defined and would be determined by Ibc markcl, Iml xwmld be approximately $2 per square foot; height of the prQect is approximately 95 [~et. Relalivc to Ibc fire access he explained that the furniture in the restaurant seating area and the retail inlerior space was rcmov;d~]c ami fire and emergency vehicles would be able to drive through the Iccp, but that it was not open m regular vehicle access. He reviewed the design changes, concept of awnings, sample material boartL colors, and usc of arches. implemented to address earlier concerns raised by the C~ty Council and staff'. Mr. VasclUCZ said Ihal oll Slovens Creek on the park, they created a more pedestrian edge to the building. I Ic conlinncd his prcscnlalion illustrated the location of tree plantings, planter boxes, location of the courtyard, Iocalitm of trash conlaincrs and answered questions. He noted that similar planting design could be fimnd atthc I lamptons and Park Place. Com. Kwok expressed concern that there appeared to be an imbalance of planlings on Iht cast side. Mr. I,clirc acknowledged tile lack of plantings on the east side and discussed wn'ions trees thai would bc appropriate Ibr thc area, and said they would be added to the landscape plan. Randol Mackley, Retail Real Estate Group, discussed the potential retail uses for a 6~000 squarc fool at'ca space in the apartment project. He explained that he had expertise working on tnafly mixed usc projccls in South Bay, and pointed out that the apartment complex was an excellent location in Ctipcrtim~ fin' snch a tm~jccl. He said that he was confident the mixed nsc project would be successfi~l, and said Iht squarc tbohlgc wonkl bc suitable for a maximum of 4 tenants, or minimum of 2-3 tenants. Ho said lhal Ibc IHOSI :lpln'oprialc tcl~;lnls Ibr thc retail space would be small eateries, specialty shops, or a cat~. In order for il Io bo successful, hc poinlcd t~lll lhlll unique signage and creative marketing strategies would have to be tlscd. Sonic crcativc marl<cling slralcgics include fabric signs, awnings, tile use of miniature lights on thc premises, rich malcrlals ;md large, bul I:lMcl'ul eclectic signage. He also suggested using full glass panels fi'om floor to ceiling in thc front of Iht slorc as attracts custorner,s. He said that because of the indoor parking, tile shops would nol lend Ihcmsclvcs shoppers. Mr. Mackley said that he was confident of leasing 90% to 100% of thc space before conlplclion project; and reported that he handled the Falstaff property on the Alameda which was 00% leased bcl;m'c notice of completion. Discussion continued regarding potential tenants Ibr the relail space. Ml'.Macklcv said that an eyewear store would be successful in the retail space, whereas a dry clcancrs would ilol. Mi'. Macklcy explained tile reasons for the failure of the downtown San ,lose Pavilion Shops. Com. Kwok noted that there were many restaurants along Stevens Creek arid I)cAu×a Blvds, alld suggcslcd Ihal a survey be taken of the area to come up with some unique restaurants, ones that would nol compclc wilh thc hold restaurant. Discussion continued wherein additional marketing strategies were discussed, iucluding painlhlg Iht garage :, lighter color; foot pads to retail fi'om the garage; wall murals&~-.the parking garage; and enhanced signagc Ii'om the parking garage. It was also uoted that notices from local retailers were put in hotels, and ctmpous/cuticcmcnls given to hotel clientele. Com. Stevens said he was pleased with the apartment prqject, said it had charactcr, and conlplcnlcnlcd Ibc building behind it; agreed tbat the retail had to be successful; felt frontage tm Slevcns Crock will look stark; Iii, cd the step of the building aud towers; said he did not know how the tower can be integrated inlo thc hold; concerned about a sheer wall; and apartlnents complement the towers. Com. Doyle suggested a glass wall into the parking structure; suggested a walk around thc lowers where Ihcrc arc excellent examples of what it should look like. He said understanding the impacts ou Ibc parking, hc did l~ol wahl to receive a request to bulldoze the trees. He said he would like to see an inner courtyard on a lower level lo street level; he said that be felt the 95 ft. height was too high; he felt the fi'ont thces were too vcrlicak docs have a pedestrian feel. He questioned whether the opening of the amphitheater coukl hc linkcd Itl Ihcpulllic as there is no open space associates with the apartment building. He said that thc walk bctwccn thc hotel and thc tower needed to be upgraded, and tile fountain on the walkway between tile apartments and Iht tower needed Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 5, 2000 be upgraded. 14e said he would also like to see a successftfl podium (Mtn. View). He also asked lo see views Ii'om ~fevens Creek and the DeAnza Blvd. side. Com. Corr said that he preferred the first rendering rather than the flat one. I le expressed concern il[~t)tll drawing people in from the Stevens Creek side, and said that the Crossroads Center shoukl also bc considered, as well as a pedestrian way to other retail such as the Target center. He said to treat the cas! side with care as il would bc visible from the other sides; and commented that it was not always pleasant to dine outdoors in Ibc evening in Cupertino. He expressed concern that the area may attract skateboarders because or tile railings. I Ic said hc was willing to make exceptions for the signage to make the retail uses successfifi. Also holed Ihat ihcy nccdcd Iobc consistent with the existing sign ordinance. Com. Kwok commented that his confidence level had been raised, and he felt that it wonkl bca sncccssl'ul project. He expressed concern about the retail and the parking, noting that 59 spaces were nol adcqualc. I Ic said that the east side needed more plants. He said that be still wanted clarificatinn on thc I:AR o1' Ibc cnlirc projccl. He expressed concern that the project would be lower than the neighboring projects, was concerned with visibility, and the character of the architecture. He said he felt the parking in fi'ont o1' Ibc street nccdcd somcwork as it was the showplace for the entire project. Com. Kwok said he was willing ti) compromise as fin'as signagc is concerned, noting that some exceptions may have to be granted tbr the nniqne signage. [lc said that he did want it to be precedent setting. Chair Harris said that she was pleased they were building an apartment complex; she Felt thc bnilding was Ioo tall: would like to see the retail at ground level; she preferred the arcbitectnre o1' thc original plan: il~c hcighl differential was suitable. She said that there was a need fbr parks and a jogging track; need fin' bikc racks in rclail areas; need to open the amphitheater up, noting it was not a public use space; said il' there was a swim pool in other complex, she would like to see it open to the apartment residents; liked thc mnral tm thc inside o1' thc garage; parking~areas need to be made more noticeable. Chair Harris said that she was willing lo approve exceptions for the signage in order to help the retail use be snccessflfl. She said that il was m)l mlvisablc Io have the signage and graphics presented separately to the Planning Commissioa. She rcmindcd Iht applicant prepare an updated artist's rendering as well as furnish a model. Mr. Piasecki's comlnents included: Staff will be looking at the prqject at original tn'cas, and I'ollow Ihrough on direction received; do not want town and conntry architecture; interested in having rclail nsc bc succcssl'ul: fmc swim pool for apartments and hotel; noted that project was complicated inld clnlno{ gt) Wl'Ollg OVCl'doing information; discussed fire trucks access into the area; will be setting up a tour I'm' Cily Council and l'lanning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting al 6:45 _ p.m. on February 14,2000 Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 28, 2000 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CUPERTINO PLANNING COM M ISSI{)N MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 31,2000 ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Comlnunity Development; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Michelle Rodrigues, Planner I1; Eileen Murray, Assislanl City Attorney Applicants Present: Art May, Kempton Group; David Sussman, VID Hotel Development ami Design; Ken Reyuolds, Director of Construction; .lira Whclan, Kcmlmm Group; John Moss, Pegasus Development; Don Bragg, Pegasus Development Approval of January 10, 2000 Planning Commission minutes. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone tile approwtl of the .January 1(), 2000 mccling minutes to tile February 14, 2000 meeting. Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Chairperson Harris moved tile agenda to Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Amend Municipal Code ..r_e.garding review of single family residential applications City of Cupertino Citywide Amend tile Municipal code to shift all family residential review to residential dcsigu review committee and to discuss the Planning Commission Subcomlnittees Continued.from Planning Commission meeting of ,Jtml. l~tFy 24, 2000 Tentative City Council date of February 22, 2000 Staff presentation: Ms. Michelle Rodrigues, Planner 11, reviewed tile discussion l¥om Ihe previous Planning Commission meeting, noting that tile decision was to merge tile two commillccs into one: that any of the decisions made by tile new committee wot, Id be a recommendation to Ibc Planning Planning Commission Special Meetit~g 2 .lanuary _? I, 2000 Commission item on the consent calendar or as a regular agenda item: and Ibc Plmming Commission would have final authority on those decisions. The new commiltee would bc reconfigured to have two Planning Commissioners, and the Planning Director and al'Chilcchu'al consultant would be recommendation only through either the pre planning stage and/or Ihrongh staff report to help the Planning Commission reach a decision. The architech.'al advisor would be available at meetings for items with some difficulty. She said that one of thc key Ihings Itl work out is what is going to come before the new committee. Ms. Rodrigues reviewed the co,nparisou matrix which listed functions of the I)csign Review Committee and the Design Review Subcommittee. She said the goal was to have a clear understanding of the committee's final authority. Chair Harris clarified that under the heading of Design Review Co~nmittee (DRC), Iherighl band column contained items to go to the Planning Commission. She said the meeting cculcrcdm'tmnd the items trader the DRC colunln and it was not suggested that the ilems under Plamdug Commission be moved to the DRC; the concept ~vas that the I)RC was Io haudic simple. controversial items and not architectural review lbr new buildiugs. She ilolcd all Ibc items under the DRC purple or orange shading on the table would be handled by Olio colnulillcc. including signs. She recalled that former Planning Director Bob Cowan rccommclldcd if Planning Commission became bogged down with au item, consideration be given to scud i~ lo thc committee. She also noted that when staff forwarded the report to the City Council, il was recommended to change the langnage falling trader the committee decisions, so Ihal whcu thc committee recommends against the request, it states that the committee is divided or is recommending against, and it will take 2 members to recommend against and a divided to remove'it fi'om the Cousent Calendar. She added thul another rcconuncndation umlcr ~ackground, was to add No. 6, which states that the architect's and director's roles arc advisory. Ms. Rodrigues distributed a copy of Exhibit A, Procedural Rules. Chair I hm'is [lolcd thai Iht DRC had some roles approved by the City Council and said thnt when the two commiltces arc combined, if any of these rules do not remaiu in effect, tile changes need to be rcfc['rcd Itl thc ('itv Council, or the entire document needs to be incorporated into the ordinance that thc Cily Couucil approves. She said that the Director of Community Development shall have the aulhority ltl [imil the number of items on the agenda, and ou a staff basis they can make thc dccisiou aboul the meeting in advance. Com. Stevens commented that itl reviewing the changes it appeared that all items were for this committee and may eventually get to the Pla~i'~g Commission. I Ic said hc committee should look at items of lesser intent or intensily. He said hc wanlcd Io cnsm'c Planning Commission was the fbcal poiut; with an optiou lbr less complcx items and/or arc specifically directed to be there, not vice versa. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to continue the item to the l:ebruary 28, 2000 Plauning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-lJ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted the deadline date of April 2 for cnlrics for the Governor's Historic Preservation Award. She also noted receipt of inlbrmalion ou Ibc 30Ih ?lanning Commission Special Meeting 3 .lauuary 3 I, 2000 Annual Planning Zoning for Coulmunity Land Use; and Successl'ul Managcmcnt o1' I'lanning ami Zoning Departmeuts in Colorado. Chair Harris moved tile agenda back to Item I. 1. Workshop for discussion of proposed hotel at City Center, South DeAuza Boulcwu'd nc:ir Stevens Creek Blvd. Assistant City Attorney Eileeu Murray explained that the work study session was informational purposes relative to the proposed hotel. Mr. Art May, Kempton Group, said that tile work study session prcscntcd Ihe ol~porltmily ~o discuss special issues, details, and solicit feedback. Bob Wheaten, reviewed tile updated architectural renderings of tile hotel and restaurant, pointing out coufereuce facilities, dining facilities, restrooms, prefunction areas, guest rooms, and parkiug facilities. He then outlined the elevations, floor plans, parking facilities and propt)scd architectural features. Topics of discussion included signage for hotel and restaurant; nt,nber o1' levels in I, arking structure; building height, landscaping, and hotel entry. Com. Doyle said he felt tile building was too high, but needed other vicws I'or comparison purposes. He expressed coucem about step back, noting that it was present iu other buildiugs on Stevens Creek. He said the design was stark and diversity was needed. I Ic said thai hc I'cll parking should be below grade as the amonut et'shared parking iudicates that there will bc people parking in the other structure ]lightly. Other concerns were tile views I¥om other angles, level et' articulation should be higher than tile Hilton, view with or without trees, how docs proposal 151 ill with existing requirements, iuformation on FAR, and ensure that precedents are not being sct. Com. Corr said that relative to tile height, stair steps should be included; arcas el'concern iucludc how the entire project fits; difference between the two elevations; signage; thc north clcwllion: Iht restaurant, including its proximity on the coruer to tile parking which is ch~wn Ibc slrcel: slark appearance; connecting parkiug structures; selt'-parking and valet parking. Com. Kwok said he was concerned about entry fi'om th?_,garage into thc building; tral'fic access points; location of restrooms; height reduction; aud he requested u comparison o1' what Ihcrc was in other parts of the city, including tile exceptions. Com. Stevens expressed concerns about tile complex masking the buiklings behind; step ['uuciiou should be reviewed or explained; height; stark appea,'ance; depth missing; suggested putting top floors atop tile parkiug lot; parking entrance; parking signage, and parking ratios: FAI~,: need for more restrooms in lobby area; and air conditiouer vents atop buildiug. Com. Corr pointed otlt that somewhere in tile juncture allotller one el' tile towers It) thc right would break tile sta.-kness. The applicant discussed the desigu features of tile hotel complex, tile various pcrspcctivcs~ and explained the rationale I'or the building height, width, mass and setbacks. Planning Commission Special Meeting 4 .lanmu'y 3 I. 2000 Chair Harris requested that a model be provided tbr a clearer understauding, as well as im[jcctions Oll more suburban hotels relative to bow many people actually park there and how many come iu by other transportation methods; on the use of tile conference I'acility, aud what thc impacts arc relative to parking. Ms. Wordell sun~marized that tile next steps incJudecl the applicant working wilh slal'l'h~ dclinc Iht drawings, followed by review by the city's architectural consultant. Tile meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. to tile special meetiug on Saturday, I:cl~rum'y 5, 20{)0 at I0 Respectfully Submitted, E lizabe~ Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 28, 2000